Emma_Goldman

53 ms·

481.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
What is to be had by calling this a 'cognitive bias'? That is to assume a prior and universal value-set. In matter of fact, it is perfectly natural for people to value their own creative activity. That is central to what it is to
482.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Well, maybe we just disagree. I think it's very unlikely that most or all the people to use 'scientist' in that way are all three of: non-English speaking; based in the sciences (for it would not be possible to conflate the t
483.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
That explanation presumes (i) that most or all of the people who have been using 'scientist' in that way are non-English speaking; and (ii) that they have no knowledge of or fail to use the English sense of 'scientist'.
484.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Academics =/= scientists The former is a more expansive category than the latter. This is something which is true for all academics.
485.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
They are separate in the sense that one can believe the first and not the second, as you do, but not in the sense that they have no connection. The second is, albeit crudely put here, a common starting point for reaching the first. And yes,
486.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I'm not entirely sure that I understand what your argument is, but I think you're saying that different concepts represent the same ideas. I don't think concepts are distinct from ideas, so I'm not convinced by that. Whe
487.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I agree that modulation and divisions of labour reduce the limits otherwise imposed by human working memory. I'm not sure that the same is not true of lifespans, namely, what kind of thinking cannot be sufficiently comprehended as to b
488.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I think the person who you are responding to took objection at a philosophical level, namely, it's simply not the case, however robust the scientific results, that you have direct access to the 'pure nature of the world in itself&
489.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Hmmm I think it's important to emphasise that anarcho-capitalism necessarily relies on coercion, but it's probably a strawman when speaking about its philosophical defenders. Libertarians want to maximise the account of freedom th
490.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Sorry. Libertarian philosophy is my bete noire. But the point is evident enough: I highly doubt libertarians can offer a credible macro-economic justification for the creation of a decentralised currency sustained by the whims of the market
491.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I'm not a moral realist so I think that libertarian philosophy is nothing but the most venal elements of capitalism congealed in thought, but I should add that the classical formulation of libertarianism is internally incoherent. You o
492.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I'm not sure about this. What is 'attractive' about the pen is that it involves highly valued scarce resources (so much so that, we are told, they have to import more from China). And it involves skilled labour. That doesn&#x
493.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
If you think anything I said was gibberish then demonstrate it; don't hand-wave at it. I have given a rationale. It was not especially complicated but, then, this is a thread on hacker, and not a manifesto. I don't see why identif
494.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I am not formulating policy, so I need not act as such. Pen's are not useless. But the clear implicature of what I said is that the functional difference between an ordinary pen and a $4000 pen is negligible such that the $4000 pen is
495.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy. IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better
496.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. I said that one can only understand its cultural significance through careful sociological reflection. That is a truism to me. "If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociolog
497.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
My bad! RE: Christian anarchists / Tolstoy I read Maxim Gorky's My Universities recently - a novel about his coming-of-age in late 19th century Russia. The reigning philosophy that rears its head again and again is Tolstoyan, th
498.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
There is no cut-off line because symbolic capital is not something that has a mathematical formula. The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group, and from situation to situation. The idea that a claim is only va
499.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
The point is that the desire to climb the status ladder by purchasing conspicuously expensive, useless commodities is generated by a pretty deformed set of social relations. It is a product of a very shallow capitalist culture, and has the
500.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I especially like that Octopus' have a large proportion of their neurons distributed along their arms, and that their arms are semi-autonomous. But that also suggests that the neuron-count for Octopus' is lower that the total figu
501.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Ah okay, I'll go with your more charitable reading! I'm just very used to people dismissing an entire cultural and philosophical movement based on hearsay. It's not that hard to just pick up and read Foucault, Derrida, etc.,
502.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
What? Well, given their dismissal of the whole of the humanities, and the ridicule with which they spoke about Foucault, I doubt they're going to be reading The History of Sexuality or The Archaeology of Knowledge anytime soon. Or
503.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
This entire conversation is a tissue of confusions. 'Cultural Marxism' is a pejorative term for the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. It was invented by fascists to dismiss the whole enterprise without engaging with it. The Fra
504.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
"BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?!" This suggests that you have never bothered to read Foucault. He is extremely readable.
505.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
Yeah, I think you need to parse the popular expression of vague post-modernist thought in political debate from the philosophical proponents of post-modernism. You ought not infer the emptiness of the second from the emptiness of a lot of t
506.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
This is embarrassing and supercilious. The alarm-bells began to ring from the point at which I realised that the author thought too much of himself to bother to actually engage with any post-modernist. It's easy to impute a series of h
507.
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
I like the paper. But it does not have much to do with the traditional canon of philosophical problems. Thankfully it does nothing more than set out a conceptual space in which the general theoretical framework of AI can be analysed. I gues